About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
CSPAN 8
MSNBCW 2
CSPAN2 1
KGO (ABC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
debaters , please. jonathan. who is ronald reagan? need two people. oh, who is ronald reagan and jimmy carter? okay. now you've got the idea. [ chuckles ] presidential debaters for $400, please. jeff. who are george bush and michael dukakis? which george bush? george bush sr.? yes. that's right. presidentiaters for $600, please. jeff. who are ronald reagan and walter mondale?al d. presidential debaters for $800. lauren. who are bush, clinton, and perot? which bush? uh, bush i. yes. presidential debaters for $1,000. jeff. who are george w. bush and al gore? yes.
and not an election year liability? >> i work for ronald reagan. he compromised on everything. we had a democratic house with a huge majority. he had to. the real divided government can work. ronald reagan proved it could work. clinton proved it could work. those are guys who got huge legislation enacted. the reagan economic plan, immigration reform, social security reform -- here is the thing -- the president has got to lead. >> i would say this is not the season -- compromise is not in the air. but i think that the republicans in the house realize it is in their political interest to turn the heat down and not have a food fight every few weeks for the american public. what i think is in the air and is happening is people from the far left and the far right are starting to come together against institutions and the governing parties, and you will see more of that. you saw it last week with the drones. you will see it with the banks on wall street. businesses that are impacted by the federal government in terms of getting money. there is increasingly from the left and right a coming together again
but under president ronald reagan's watch it is the first thing people associate with the name. she was free elective accept of course for the relatives of those who died in beirut to it's hard to say how it will affect her legacy that it continues to be associated with her time in office. >> host: thank you for the book and for the interview. >> guest: thank you for having me. was a pleasure. >> got was "after words," booktv signature program which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policy makers, legislators and others familiar with the material. "after words" airs every weekend on booktv 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" on line. good booktv.org and click on "after words" in the book tv series and topics list on the upper right side of the page. >>> jeffrey frank recounts the personal and working relationship between president dwight eisenhower and vice president richard nixon. mr. frank reports nixon constantly sought eisenhower's approval while eisenhower was unsure of mix and's
. >> let me quote dick cheney, who said ronald reagan taught us that deficits do not matter. dick cheney was wrong. he was wrong then and now. of course deficits matter, but any one of you who supported the bush plans has no right to speak. i helped bill clinton balance the budget and build a surplus. why? because we had good economic times. in good economic times, you pay down the deficit, but reagan and bush did not, and in bad you have to stimulate in the near term, as thank god president obama is doing. we democrats will balance the budget once again. >> paul, which is more important to america's pursuit of happiness -- which is more dangerous, excuse me, than a 357 magnum -- >> in my home you would find 17 guns and no cans of soda pop. i have the right wing position on the giant drink soda thing. i do not like the idea, and i think bloomberg is a fine man, but i do not like government telling us what size to buy today. this one, i am with tucker and most of you. i have the right wing position on gun safety. i have the same position as ronald reagan, who was for a waiting period befo
in college, it's becoming more difficult to raise children frankly in this culture. ronald reagan was very good as making what was known as reagan democrats fighting for him and i think our party has get an away from that. >> i know you have different views and come from a different place, but he was really the champion at high-level politics, hitting still on issues about sexual morality, on issues like abortion. i see the party as not moving away from those issues, even as some of the intellectual discussion in the party says that that stuff needs to be let behind. do you think that's the party's future or do you think it's only in the past? >> i would say there's two things. the mistake or trap we fall in is we allow ourselves to be singularly defined by those issues. i would argue that things like abortion is an important issue. however, we can't let our party only be about abortion. the second thing is a lot of people are looking at the demographics results and argue we need to be a different party. ultd say no. you're not foing to do that. i think the republican party has to be the s
of ronald reagan and stop conservatism and just go back to the good old truth that is worked back then, that reagan laid for the incredible ground work of the economy in the 1980's and 1990's. clinton helped to some extent, ut then he created and repealed glass-steagall, and everybody blames it on george bush. the conservatives who didn't do much for the letter peace, we tried to expand under karl rove, the voting process, and giving more to hispanic community, and we didn't get one increase in vote in that eight-year period so. what makes you think that we're going to give amnesty and all the set get a bunch of votes? it's fraud, and it's another really ploy by the democratic party to keep promising and benefits to everybody who will vote for them no matter what. scommoip we're going to talk about immigration in our next segment of the "washington journal" today. but we still have about five minutes left in this segment, if you want to call in to give us your take on this growth and opportunities report that was released today, or if you think hanges in the republican debates would ha
obama give the order to have these people killed? is that what you're saying? caller: ronald reagan was not hesitating that's for sure. hal: ronald reagan would have killed the american ambassador in benghazi? caller: i heard speeches of ronald reagan and they sound completely different as they do to obama. hal: you mean the speeches around iron-contra, for example. caller: and nobody's perfect. hal: nobody's perfect. >> how can you speculate how president reagan would react in today's environment? i think milltail things have changed. hal: if policies any indication, he'd be a democratic, because he'd have to change parties after he was primaried as a republican. jacki: because he was too moderate. the nature of warfare that ha changed, too. hal: george is talking out of his posterior. you can tell with the conversion from benghazi to reagan. jacki: a cooling gel might be good for that. hal: i would say to george before he calls back in and tries on another show or either on this one to push that as a paired example of presidential egregious behavior to read up on history. there ar
for ronald reagan. he compromised on everything. we had a democratic house with a huge majority. he had to. the real divided government can work. ronald reagan proved it could work. clinton proved it could work. those are guys who got huge legislation enacted. the reagan economic plan, immigration reform, social security reform -- here is the thing -- the president has got to lead. for four years we have had a president was not willing to take that kind of leadership to make congress work. i hope he will this term. >> i would say this is not the season -- compromise is not in the air. but i think that the republicans in the house realize it is in their political interest to turn the heat down and not have a food fight every few weeks for the american public. what i think is in the air and is happening is people from the far left and the far right are starting to come together against institutions and the governing parties, and you will see more of that. you saw it last week with the drones. you will see it with the banks on wall street. businesses that are impacted by the federal governmen
in american politics. ronald reagan was president. republicans controlled the senate, not the house, but rage gain has been successful in getting things through the house. immersed a whole bunch evidence to say that there had been, i called it media realignment. that the media was getting more conservative or at least less liberal and i wrote a whole piece on the cover of the new republic. it was completely wrong. as it turned out. i had all of this evidence that i thought added up to something and it really did not. >> does it matter though? >> of course it matter? s. >> why? >> look at the 2012 bam campaign. >> you never changed your views and you lived around the liberal media? what does it matter? are they all sheep following the media says? >> oh, who? >> others. >> the reporters. well, there have been some who have come out. i remember charles when he was liberal. i remember mike when he was a pollster for a liberal democratic polling firm. so some people have changed. >> i am talking about the public? >> sure. >> the public, does the public see only liberal coverage and say, yeah, tha
more difficult to raise children frankly in this culture. and ronald reagan was good making what was known as reagan democrats feel good he was fighting for them and our party has gotten away from that. >> your candidate in the primaries, don't mean to con flat you and mr. santorum, you have different views, come from a different place, he was really the champion of cultural politics at high level republican politics, hitting still on issues about gay rights, on issues about sexual morality, on issues like abortion. i see the party as not moving away from those issues, even as some of the intellectual discussion says that stuff needs to be left behind. is that the party's future or only the past? >> i would say there's two things. one, the mistake or trap we fall in is we allow ourselves to be singularly defined by those issues. i would argue things like abortion is an important issue. however, we can't let our party only be about abortion. sometimes we fall in the trap of letting that happen. second thing, a lot of people look at demographics and election results and say we have
of ronald reagan that the number one goal of the federal government is to have an balanced budget as if every family has an balanced budget. i'm in pretty good shape but i owe a lot of money too. i have a mortgage here and a mortgage in california and a car debt. >> over current spending levels over the next ten years, you are talking a decade of above 95% debt to gop issue. >> bill: but the deficit is coming down? >> sure. but economists will tell you that the debt is the worry not the deficit. >> wouldn't they also say that's not the biggest problem we face? we're trying to stimulate ourselves out of the -- >> bill: yes, but john boehner is talking about balancing the budget. he is not talking about getting rid of the national debt, he is talk about balancing the budget in ten years. and jobs it seems to me there are a lot of more important problems, and one of them is we still have almost 8% unemployment. i would say that would be getting people back to work priority number 1, and maybe you can't balance the budget until you do. >> uh-huh. one interesting
to. the real divided government can work. ronald reagan proved it could work. clinton proved it could work. those are guys who got huge legislation enacted. the reagan economic plan, immigration reform, social security reform --here is the thing -- the president has got to lead. for four years we have had a president was not willing to take that kind of leadership to make congress work. i hope he will this term. >> i would say this is not the season -- compromise is not in the air. but i think that the republicans in the house realize it is in their political interest to turn the heat down and not have a food fight every few weeks for the american public. what i think is in the air and is happening is people from the far left and the far right are starting to come together against institutions and the governing parties, and you will see more of that. you saw it last week with the drones. you will see it with the banks on wall street. byinesses that are impacted the federal government in terms of getting money. there is increasingly from the left and right a coming together against the
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)